Seperation of Church and...on its last legs...

[LuvRPgrl]

The concept of seperation of church and state being in the Constitution is a dying idea. It will soon go the way of "albums", cell phones with car size batteries attatched, and TRS-80 pc's.

The words, of course, are not in the Constitution. We all acknowledge that. However, the anti religous satanists "claim" the concept is there. You just have to move a few rocks, and wala !

Problems with their arguements:

They like to refer to Jeffersons writings, I believe. Well, its those same people who claim that God isnt mentioned in the COTUS, (thus proving they dont really want seperation of Church, but elimination of Church), so, on one hand, they claim a concept can be supported by outside writings (seperation), but on the other hand, they claim you cant use outside writings (God in the COTUS). But if you think about it, their arguement is entirely backwards

IF ANY outside document should be used to collaborate a concept in another document, it SHOULD BE the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution, and NOT writings by Jefferson or others, and the Constitution.

The Declaration is an officlal and legal accompanying document to the COTUS. The writings of Jefferson and othes ISNT.

NOTHING in the Declaration can contradict the COTUS, but many, many writings and beliefs by Jefferson and others DO IN FACT contradict the Constitution.

The declaration was signed by all the founding fathers, hence it is a collective concept as is the COTUS, the writings of individuals are not.

So, we have emperically established that God IS in the Constitution, and "seperation" isnt.

Now, one little historical fact, that I find amazing isnt brought up more often, is that if the writers of the Constitution intended for their to be NO STATE sponsored religions, THEN WHY DID THEY HAVE THEM?????????????
((*^*(&^)$ioi*r&(*&dojdsljln#)&(*^d(*y ING idiotic idea that they could make it unconstitutional to have a state sponsored religion, and THEN MAKE LEGAL STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS. Look it up, its a HISTORICAL fact, many of the state had LEGALLY STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS.

Now, the idea of the COTUS being a living and breathing document, well, lets just say to all you liberals, you need to go find some cork to stick up your collective asses right now for the hole you just got torn in it and stop it from bleeding so PROFUSELY,,,,so I dont want to do too much more damage on the other issue, we can bring up "living and breathing" document at another time, another thread, less you lose your ability to (dang, my 10 year old boy has just been dying for me to be able to use that emoticon ! )

 

[Annie]

The concept of seperation of church and state being in the Constitution is a dying idea. It will soon go the way of "albums", cell phones with car size batteries attatched, and TRS-80 pc's.

The words, of course, are not in the Constitution. We all acknowledge that. However, the anti religous satanists "claim" the concept is there. You just have to move a few rocks, and wala !

Problems with their arguements:

They like to refer to Jeffersons writings, I believe. Well, its those same people who claim that God isnt mentioned in the COTUS, (thus proving they dont really want seperation of Church, but elimination of Church), so, on one hand, they claim a concept can be supported by outside writings (seperation), but on the other hand, they claim you cant use outside writings (God in the COTUS). But if you think about it, their arguement is entirely backwards

IF ANY outside document should be used to collaborate a concept in another document, it SHOULD BE the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution, and NOT writings by Jefferson or others, and the Constitution.

The Declaration is an officlal and legal accompanying document to the COTUS. The writings of Jefferson and othes ISNT.

NOTHING in the Declaration can contradict the COTUS, but many, many writings and beliefs by Jefferson and others DO IN FACT contradict the Constitution.

The declaration was signed by all the founding fathers, hence it is a collective concept as is the COTUS, the writings of individuals are not.

So, we have emperically established that God IS in the Constitution, and "seperation" isnt.

Now, one little historical fact, that I find amazing isnt brought up more often, is that if the writers of the Constitution intended for their to be NO STATE sponsored religions, THEN WHY DID THEY HAVE THEM?????????????
((*^*(&^)$ioi*r&(*&dojdsljln#)&(*^d(*y ING idiotic idea that they could make it unconstitutional to have a state sponsored religion, and THEN MAKE LEGAL STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS. Look it up, its a HISTORICAL fact, many of the state had LEGALLY STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS.

Now, the idea of the COTUS being a living and breathing document, well, lets just say to all you liberals, you need to go find some cork to stick up your collective asses right now for the hole you just got torn in it and stop it from bleeding so PROFUSELY,,,,so I dont want to do too much more damage on the other issue, we can bring up "living and breathing" document at another time, another thread, less you lose your ability to (dang, my 10 year old boy has just been dying for me to be able to use that emoticon ! )

Based on what? I mean where are you getting these 'rules' of what we should base our discussions on? Maybe I'm not getting what you are trying to say?

 

[MissileMan]

Based on what? I mean where are you getting these 'rules' of what we should base our discussions on? Maybe I'm not getting what you are trying to say?

I believe she is trying to say that the DoI should be accepted as the preamble (and therefore, part of) to the constitution because that's how she thinks it should be. It's another attempt by the extreme religious right to get Christianity embedded into the constitution and laws, no different than trying to get the bible through the backdoors of schools with Genesis as part of science curriculum.

 

[Annie]

I believe she is trying to say that the DoI should be accepted as the preamble (and therefore, part of) to the constitution because that's how she thinks it should be. It's another attempt by the extreme religious right to get Christianity embedded into the constitution and laws, no different than trying to get the bible through the backdoors of schools with Genesis as part of science curriculum.

Oh I got that part of D of I, just don't see HOW she gets there. Seemed to be all 'her opinion' of how it should all go down, but she does say it forcefully. :whip3:

 

[LuvRPgrl]

She is a HE,,,and I used sound reasons why the D OF I should be used along side the COTUS,,,and sound reasons why thats more logical than using "private writings" of founders of the nation to interpet the COTUS.

I dont think I said anything about rules of engagement on this forum, if Im wrong, please quote where I did that.

And as for just blanketly stating " wants to embed Christianity" into the COTUS, try disputing anything I said.

I made statements of facts, and logical conclusions, the response was merely opinion by MM.

An analogy in trying to determine law would be a ruling (COTUS)handed down by a court. You could read the attatched statements by the judges(D OF I) on their reasons for the ruling, and it would help clarify, if needed, the actual ruling (COTUS), vs. reading opinions by the DA or the defendents (writings of the founding fathers).

 

[Annie]

She is a HE,,,and I used sound reasons why the D OF I should be used along side the COTUS,,,and sound reasons why thats more logical than using "private writings" of founders of the nation to interpet the COTUS.

I dont think I said anything about rules of engagement on this forum, if Im wrong, please quote where I did that.

And as for just blanketly stating " wants to embed Christianity" into the COTUS, try disputing anything I said.

I made statements of facts, and logical conclusions, the response was merely opinion by MM.

An analogy in trying to determine law would be a ruling (COTUS)handed down by a court. You could read the attatched statements by the judges(D OF I) on their reasons for the ruling, and it would help clarify, if needed, the actual ruling (COTUS), vs. reading opinions by the DA or the defendents (writings of the founding fathers).

Sorry, I thought you were a woman. Again, I can't make sense of what you are trying to express. Could be me, but how do you get a comparison with what you are trying to discuss with judicial rulings? I'm not clear where you are trying to go.

 

[MissileMan]

She is a HE,,,and I used sound reasons why the D OF I should be used along side the COTUS,,,and sound reasons why thats more logical than using "private writings" of founders of the nation to interpet the COTUS.

I dont think I said anything about rules of engagement on this forum, if Im wrong, please quote where I did that.

And as for just blanketly stating " wants to embed Christianity" into the COTUS, try disputing anything I said.

I made statements of facts, and logical conclusions, the response was merely opinion by MM.

An analogy in trying to determine law would be a ruling (COTUS)handed down by a court. You could read the attatched statements by the judges(D OF I) on their reasons for the ruling, and it would help clarify, if needed, the actual ruling (COTUS), vs. reading opinions by the DA or the defendents (writings of the founding fathers).

Apologies on the gender error.

It is a fact, that both the DoI and the constitution were written by (mostly) the same group of people. They are though in fact, two separate documents with two distinct and separate purposes. It's no coincidence, IMO, that there are no references to a god or creator in the constitution. It was left out intentionally.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Apologies on the gender error.

It is a fact, that both the DoI and the constitution were written by (mostly) the same group of people. They are though in fact, two separate documents with two distinct and separate purposes. It's no coincidence, IMO, that there are no references to a god or creator in the constitution. It was left out intentionally.

No problem on the gender mistake, it happens alot IN THIS FORUM, but not others for some reason. I even had a disclaimer on my sig for a while, "happily married to a filipino girl"
And thank you for the correction on my typo.

Exactly, two distinct purposes. The D OF I gives us the basics of our country, and the reasons for its creation.

The COTUS is the legal document in details, hence no need to mention God, although "BLESSINGS" is used, (and at that time the term was used exclusively to state something from God), and it would just be repetitous to mention God in the actual COTUS.

The D OF I specifically states the reasons for seperation from Britian, and the BASIS of the new laws, natures laws and the laws of natures God. If you notice, the founders were not so wordy as the legalists of today are. They did not find it necessary to be repetitous, hence they did not need to repeat what is already obvious in the D of I.

From what I understand, the attempted writing of a constitution for the EU was so lengthy it failed. Obviously, todays legal minds are not anything similiar to the legal minds that wrote the D of I and the COTUS.

I think the legal disclaimers in some radio commericials are longer than the COTUS. )

I understand it is your opinion it was left out intentionally, is there anything to back such an opinion. To state it was done intentionally puts a burden of proof upon the statement.

 

[Annie]

Some other Jefferson writings, especially regarding religion and constitution:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm

 

[Annie]

One more:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

On religion and the constitution framing. Lots of primary sourced materials.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

One more:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

On religion and the constitution framing. Lots of primary sourced materials.

From your link:

"In Virginia, as the War of Independence approached, the Church of England had become entrenched in a position of power and was having an increasing influence over political affairs in Virginia. Nine of the 13 colonies had an established "official" state religion. "

This verifies that the first Amendment refers to no FEDERAL establishment of religion, and that each and every individual state has the right to make their own choices on the matter.

One can argue that the individual states have created a wall of seperation, depending on each states Constitution, but to conclude that wall exists at a federal level based on the first amend. is patently FALSE.

How could they have intended such a concept, and then turn around and at a state level enact into law, official, legal State churches??? THAT would make absolutely NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

Seperation of Chruch and State is not in the Constitution, either in word or in concept.

 

[Annie]

From your link:

"In Virginia, as the War of Independence approached, the Church of England had become entrenched in a position of power and was having an increasing influence over political affairs in Virginia. Nine of the 13 colonies had an established "official" state religion. "

This verifies that the first Amendment refers to no FEDERAL establishment of religion, and that each and every individual state has the right to make their own choices on the matter.

One can argue that the individual states have created a wall of seperation, depending on each states Constitution, but to conclude that wall exists at a federal level based on the first amend. is patently FALSE.

How could they have intended such a concept, and then turn around and at a state level enact into law, official, legal State churches??? THAT would make absolutely NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

Seperation of Chruch and State is not in the Constitution, either in word or in concept.

Umm, that's not MY source, it's OURS. It's the government. What you are referring to was the colony of VA, not the state of. In any case, I have never SAID, implied, etc. that there is a seperation clause. Just freedom to practice religion or not, of choice.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

The COTUS, amendment one states clearly, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

This clearly means there cannot be any state-sponsored religions. Since Congress cannot respect any single religion, no state can either because it would violate the 14th amendment, which restricts states from passing any law that violates a citizen's US rights.

 

[dilloduck]

The COTUS, amendment one states clearly, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

This clearly means there cannot be any state-sponsored religions. Since Congress cannot respect any single religion, no state can either because it would violate the 14th amendment, which restricts states from passing any law that violates a citizen's US rights.

wacky interpretation of "respecting" you have there.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The concept of seperation of church and state being in the Constitution is a dying idea. It will soon go the way of "albums", cell phones with car size batteries attatched, and TRS-80 pc's.

The words, of course, are not in the Constitution. We all acknowledge that. However, the anti religous satanists "claim" the concept is there. You just have to move a few rocks, and wala !

Problems with their arguements:

They like to refer to Jeffersons writings, I believe. Well, its those same people who claim that God isnt mentioned in the COTUS, (thus proving they dont really want seperation of Church, but elimination of Church), so, on one hand, they claim a concept can be supported by outside writings (seperation), but on the other hand, they claim you cant use outside writings (God in the COTUS). But if you think about it, their arguement is entirely backwards

IF ANY outside document should be used to collaborate a concept in another document, it SHOULD BE the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution, and NOT writings by Jefferson or others, and the Constitution.

The Declaration is an officlal and legal accompanying document to the COTUS. The writings of Jefferson and othes ISNT.

NOTHING in the Declaration can contradict the COTUS, but many, many writings and beliefs by Jefferson and others DO IN FACT contradict the Constitution.

The declaration was signed by all the founding fathers, hence it is a collective concept as is the COTUS, the writings of individuals are not.

So, we have emperically established that God IS in the Constitution, and "seperation" isnt.

Now, one little historical fact, that I find amazing isnt brought up more often, is that if the writers of the Constitution intended for their to be NO STATE sponsored religions, THEN WHY DID THEY HAVE THEM?????????????
((*^*(&^)$ioi*r&(*&dojdsljln#)&(*^d(*y ING idiotic idea that they could make it unconstitutional to have a state sponsored religion, and THEN MAKE LEGAL STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS. Look it up, its a HISTORICAL fact, many of the state had LEGALLY STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS.

Now, the idea of the COTUS being a living and breathing document, well, lets just say to all you liberals, you need to go find some cork to stick up your collective asses right now for the hole you just got torn in it and stop it from bleeding so PROFUSELY,,,,so I dont want to do too much more damage on the other issue, we can bring up "living and breathing" document at another time, another thread, less you lose your ability to (dang, my 10 year old boy has just been dying for me to be able to use that emoticon ! )

You poor thing. Dropped on your head as a child and you still haven't recovered. Since the ratification of the Constitution lo these more than two centuries ago, America has gotten along just fine without an offcial state religion. The Constitution has been sucessful as the guarantor of our freedoms precisely because the Church and State have, by and large, conducted their affairs separate from each other.

As a result, we have a religous diversity in this country the exists in few other places in this world. Religion flourishes in America, and in all its diversity, because there is no state sanctioned religion. Now, if you break down the wall of separation between church and state, the state can step in and tell folks what they should believe, and if they don't like it the govenment will close the church. We need look no further than modern Mainland China for the proof of that pudding. If religious doctrine becomes the foundation for government, then the potential for a Taliban-like regime in America looms large. It is a no-win situation in either case.

The best solution is the old saw, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." and that is exactly what we should do. Leave well enough alone in this case. To maintain a stable society, the laws of man must hold sway over the secular affairs of state. The laws of one's favorite deity one may cleve to as one's conscience dictates. When religion and politics ride in the same cart, discord, conflict and death follow behind.

BTW, your argument is full of , and I'm sure your 10 year-old could string together a better one.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

wacky interpretation of "respecting" you have there.

Funny, my interpretation of it is also the way it has been officially interpreted. Go figure! :duh:

 

[dilloduck]

Funny, my interpretation of it is also the way it has been officially interpreted. Go figure! :duh:

"officially" I like that one too!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

"officially" I like that one too!

You live in la la land if you think otherwise. Why do you think public schools are secular and no states have official religions? Magic?

 

[dilloduck]

You live in la la land if you think otherwise. Why do you think public schools are secular and no states have official religions? Magic?

Our Constitution "respects" religions. It just doesn't establish any of them as official.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Our Constitution "respects" religions. It just doesn't establish any of them as official.

No, our constitution respects the citizen's right to have freedom of religion. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." The government isn't allowed to show favoritism for any religion, it's just supposed to protect the people's right to freedom of religious expression.